Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tusharlovesrafa, Jan 16, 2013.
He didn't go through Nadal to win it.And he took advantage of the roof.Period:twisted:
No because he's 2-1 against Nadal @Wimbledon. Only the French Open is his white whale. Nadal on clay is his Moby Dick.
What about the roof? Andy was winning until roof decided to chip in..
No. Best grandslam Since FO 09
Andy just got himself broken for the second set. Momentum changing in Rogers direction was not unthinkable before the rain came.
It does a bit, as he didn't get to play Rosol. Fed is just unlucky, Nadal keeps all the good matches to himself...
2012 AO was better,better quality matches and heart beat-stoping tennis..2012 wimbly was a sham,a farce.
Roof automatically disqualifies a slam from counting as soon as it goes up. New rule I heard. Never mind that the steady changing of the surfaces is evolving the sport by a huge amount already. Bringing the roof into play just destroys the sport altogether.
Spot on.I hope rest of your clan members could understand this..
This thread is pointless.
The only clan around is the 17 GS clan
the rest is just fantasy tennis stuff
why aren't you dead then?
Nope. It felt very satisfying.
They don't pay out on those who don't show up.
No. Boring slow tennis, lots of timewasting and a predictable winner and final. Anyway, i meant for me personally. You asked what I find, you were interesten in my opinion.
Just to see rafa win the coveted 18 slams,eh?
They certainly pay second round losers their well earned prize money.
I doubt it. He's desperate enough to celebrate anything. The silver medal was hollow for him though.
You do realize Nikdom's thread was a response to your fellow Nadal fanboy making this thread first: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=451085
But to answer your question, it's kinda impossible to go through Nadal to win a tourney if you're a top 5 player and Nadal gets blasted off court by some 100 ranked journeyman in the 2nd round, I thought that was self evident.
Regarding the roof, well tennis is about adapting to different conditions, yes? It's not Fed's fault his 6 year younger strong era competitors couldn't adapt and weren't up to the task of stopping him from becoming the oldest Wimbledon champion since Laver some 4 decades ago.
Spot on..JMDP deserved it more than him..he just lucked it out..
Actually it was 1-1 in sets before they decided to close the roof so illuminate us, how was Murray *winning* exactly?
I didn't think of it that way, I just meant that Federer was talking about the Olympics as being his main focus of 2012, and to go home with a silver (and one of the most lopsided final losses ever vs Murray) would be a hollow feeling given his expectations. And he would have been pretty sure of beating Murray.
It's a shame for Fed Rafa wasn't there. Would have been three quick sets.
But us usual Rafa wasn't there so Fed couldn't beat him.
Murray was playing better in the SUN,as the rain came it affected Murray's rhythm and his game just collapsed.fed is one luck dude,I am telling you..
He beat Djokovic. Roof or not he was playing better.
Against Murray, Before roof closed, he was 1-1 set, and 2-1 up in 3rd and momentum was on his side.
He was better than Nadal, who got Rosoled in ....2nd round.
So he was clearly the best out there.
I bet you'd be saying the same thing about the Australian Open if Nadal and Federer had never met at the Australian Open in 2009 and 2012.
I imagine many of Federer's victories off clay feel equally hollow because Ralphie can't make it past the lesser players in earlier rounds. All of his end of year championships must feel like cardboard trophies because you know who can't make a final.
It's completely Federer's fault that Nadal is relatively weak off clay and he should either give the kid coaching or play with lead boots to make everything more fair and... deserving.
That all may be true, for all we know Fed may be the luckiest tennis player of all time but that still doesn't answer my question, how was Murray winning (as in leading in the match) when in fact they were tied one set a piece?
Fed managed to beat Murray/Djoker back to back, AGAIN. Where was the last time cheater was able to do that?
I thought we had discussed this before, but I must have been dreaming...
Of course it is hollow. He didn't have to face the giant slayer Rosol.
Other than that, not really. I mean he only beat the #1 and #3 players in the world, and the latter at home in a country starved of Wimbledon wins for over 7 decades.
Must suck to be an irrational Rafa fan when your evidence for Rafa being better than Federer is that Rafa lost to Rosol in the 2nd round. SMH.
Thats a good analogy. I like to think of Fed as the bionic man and Nadal as the robot Sasquatch.
The OP must change his user name for tusharlovesattention
Somebody get the OP a lollipop or candy to stop the crying.
2012 Wimbledon becomes a non important because of the roof fiasco.
If 2010 Nadal US Win is Hollow then yes, Federerer 2012 Wimbledon win is Hollow.
Just like Murray getting lucked out by windy conditions at uso heh. Now That was seriously windy
Roof didn't do anything. He came back to beat Roddick after rain delays in 04'. It's what he does. He handles those situations very well.
The most hollow of all is Roland Garros 2009, when after all that struggle Federer experienced vs Nadal, he finally wins Roland Garros without even having to beat Nadal.
Yes indeed. Great minds(like us) think alike!
Fed defeated the world number #1 (and defending Wimbledon champion) and the world #3 who had the home crowd behind him. At age 30. I'd like to see nadal do that.
Oh wait, I forgot, he was sent home by a journeyman. LOL
nalad was lucky that he played Djoker 1.0 in the 2010 US Open. That too with a cake draw while facing GOAT contenders like Youzhny in the semifinal :lol: His US Open feels hollow because he never faced Djoker 2.0.
These trolling threads bring nothing to the forum, from both sides.
According to the record books, there is only one Djokovic, so your post is fail. Plus who did Federer face at 2009 Roland Garros and 2012 Wimbledon? Djokovic 2.0? Obviously not. Or did Djokovic 2.0 play in 2012? Did he play vs Nadal at Roland Garros or only at Wimbledon vs Federer?
And even if we call Djokovic 1.0, who did Federer win his US Opens against? Should we subtract the slam titles from Federer where he only had to face a Djokovic or Roddick?
yeah, only in the 2012 final, the momentum had shifted to federer's direction before the rain started ... he stole that last game in the 2nd set from murray with brilliant play and then held comfortably for 15 in the first service game and was up 40-0 in his 2nd service game in the 3rd set ....
wimbledon 2004, it is true that the rain delay did help him regroup a bit, but that match had plenty of breaks from both before that and roddick was only a break up in the 3rd set ...
All these fail threads trying to discredit Fed just because he didn't face Rafa.
When we all know Nadal has had a cakewalk draw in pretty much every major, there have been many threads about how he conveniently ended up on the opposite side of Djoker every time.
Every major is deserved. End of story.
The roof is officially part of Wimbledon. Its use does not make the results of matches invalid. You would find that if Murray had won the match under the roof, his win would be counted also by the Wimbledon officials. (That has to be the case, because otherwise they would have called off the match once the roof started to be utilized, if it was impossible to have a legitimate winner with the roof on)
Yes, sadly Nadal didn't go through the second round, such a pity.
Separate names with a comma.